as for 'empire'.... you have a very narrow one sided view on that.. whilst yes there were many things wrong with 'conquest', it also brought great benefits and many places welcomed the more advanced peoples from westerneurope.... that would be from france, spain, portugal... as well as us (which includes scotland ! :P ).

 

You confuse the leaders/rulers (ie, the Maharajahs, the Thanes, etc) welcoming the "civilisation" from Western Europe with how the ordinary person felt about it... I can assure you the ordinary Indian, African and Scot wanted nothing to do with your "civilising"..... The Maharajahs in India accepted it because they got to hold onto their power bases, but dont for one minute think that meant there wasn't Grass Roots resistance... Er, the Indian Mutiny for example, and, Ghandi........ And what choice, exactly, was given to the Native Americans and Aborigines... Yeah, they just REALLY welcomed Cultural Genocide and reservations didn't they...? <_<

 

That's really quite an insulting and grossly innaccurate thing to say... Exaclty how much did the common man actually "benefit" from any of this....? It was never set up to benefit the Indian or the African... It benefitted the elites of those countries sure, but mainly it was set up to facilitate the Western Capitalist advancement of trade and capital..... When Europe moved from Feudalism to Capitalism, it all became more about the acquisition of wealth, Capital became the "King", but let's not kid ourselves that it actually benefitted anyone other than the few....

 

Sorry, there was nothing positive about Imperialism beyond a few cosmetic things which dont really amount to very much in terms of favouring the ordinary person, it was generally built around exploitation and greed to benefit the elites... How on Earth can that be considered positive....? You need to read your Marx and Weber... You really do.....

You confuse the leaders/rulers (ie, the Maharajahs, the Thanes, etc) welcoming the "civilisation" from Western Europe with how the ordinary person felt about it... I can assure you the ordinary Indian, African and Scot wanted nothing to do with your "civilising"..... The Maharajahs in India accepted it because they got to hold onto their power bases, but dont for one minute think that meant there wasn't Grass Roots resistance... Er, the Indian Mutiny for example, and, Ghandi........ And what choice, exactly, was given to the Native Americans and Aborigines... Yeah, they just REALLY welcomed Cultural Genocide and reservations didn't they...? <_<

 

That's really quite an insulting and grossly innaccurate thing to say... Exaclty how much did the common man actually "benefit" from any of this....? It was never set up to benefit the Indian or the African... It benefitted the elites of those countries sure, but mainly it was set up to facilitate the Western Capitalist advancement of trade and capital..... When Europe moved from Feudalism to Capitalism, it all became more about the acquisition of wealth, Capital became the "King", but let's not kid ourselves that it actually benefitted anyone other than the few....

 

oh yeah, we were much better under feudalism werent we? :lol: the thing is, that was how the world worked in those days, wrong by our more civilised standards of today, but this was 200 years ago..

 

but empire is a different topic, i dont want to get bogged down in that on this thread...

oh yeah, we were much better under feudalism werent we? :

 

Did I say it was....?

 

Frankly, I dont believe that things are really all that different now than 200 years ago, you still have elites running the world, you still have exploitation of the common man, you still have the Western Capitalist countries exploiting the Third World, "Fair Trade"??? Dont make me laugh, that's just marketing..... "The more things change the more they stay the same...." :rolleyes:

 

Did I say it was....?

 

Frankly, I dont believe that things are really all that different now than 200 years ago, you still have elites running the world, you still have exploitation of the common man, you still have the Western Capitalist countries exploiting the Third World, "Fair Trade"??? Dont make me laugh, that's just marketing..... "The more things change the more they stay the same...." :rolleyes:

 

by implication, suggesting capitalism overtook feudalism ...anyway..

 

maybe, but things have moved on and are moving in the right direction.

by implication, suggesting capitalism overtook feudalism ...anyway..

 

maybe, but things have moved on and are moving in the right direction.

 

You actually think that "Globalisation" is the right direction....? To me that's just a Politically Correct term for "Imperialism" in a lot of ways..... Nothing fundamental has changed.... The EU and the US protects its own farmers and yet wont allow African and Asian farmers to have the same levels of protection and force countries on those continents to be more liberalised when it comes to trade, and yet when you look at NAFTA or the EU Common Agricultural Policy there is no such similar compulsion on European and American farmers, in fact the CAP in particular is downright Protectionist....

 

 

You actually think that "Globalisation" is the right direction....? To me that's just a Politically Correct term for "Imperialism" in a lot of ways..... Nothing fundamental has changed.... The EU and the US protects its own farmers and yet wont allow African and Asian farmers to have the same levels of protection and force countries on those continents to be more liberalised when it comes to trade, and yet when you look at NAFTA or the EU Common Agricultural Policy there is no such similar compulsion on European and American farmers, in fact the CAP in particular is downright Protectionist....

 

i think what i may or may not think is the 'right' direction is a mute point, i think its the inevitable direction we will head. capitalism goes in one direction, forward, so until its chucked out worldwide...which it wont be.. we are on a one way ticket.

 

 

is that it then?.... this months bnp/immigration thread has yet again progressed no further then 'arnt the bnp racist scum a buch of right wing thugs', 'yeah the bstrds' 'i hate them'.... etc... lord ... one day we might get past first base and discuss WHY and WHAT made these situations arose and how to tackle issues brought up...

is that it then?.... this months bnp/immigration thread has yet again progressed no further then 'arnt the bnp racist scum a buch of right wing thugs', 'yeah the bstrds' 'i hate them'.... etc... lord ... one day we might get past first base and discuss WHY and WHAT made these situations arose and how to tackle issues brought up...

The reason the BNP are in the position they are is because there are racist people in the country, and there are people embittered by not having a job / having a low-paid job and so are looking for scapegoats. The suggestion that we should overhaul immigration policies solely to accommodate the slimmest of minorities is absurd.

The reason the BNP are in the position they are is because there are racist people in the country, and there are people embittered by not having a job / having a low-paid job and so are looking for scapegoats.

 

That's it in a nutshell mate.... Spot on... It's pure JEALOUSY on the part of most of these types... They see successful Black and Asian people who have EARNED their right to have good jobs in white collar professions, and the green eyed monster just comes out and says "what gives these bloody p@kis and n*****rs the right to have that job...?".. This is, in the main, the very same people who sit on their arses all day, scrounge off the dole and watch Trisha and Jeremy fukkin' Kyle..... :rolleyes: I've yet to meet a well-educated and intelligent Nazi....

That's it in a nutshell mate.... Spot on... It's pure JEALOUSY on the part of most of these types... They see successful Black and Asian people who have EARNED their right to have good jobs in white collar professions, and the green eyed monster just comes out and says "what gives these bloody p@kis and n*****rs the right to have that job...?".. This is, in the main, the very same people who sit on their arses all day, scrounge off the dole and watch Trisha and Jeremy fukkin' Kyle..... :rolleyes: I've yet to meet a well-educated and intelligent Nazi....

 

Just putting the rise of the BNP down to sour grapes of unemployed is very simplistic, I know a few people who are middle class professionals including a millionaire IT tycoon who have said they can see where the BNP are coming from, I don't think it is just knuckle dragging skinheads and the unemployed it runs much deeper than that, 7/7 and 21/7 were the biggest recruiting sergeants the BNP has ever had and there is now deep suspicion of young muslims which plays into the hands of the BNP, I know someone who leaves a train or underground carriage if they see a young muslim in it as they fear they will be blown up, other things that play into the BNP hands are the Luton incident with the homecoming of the soldiers where they were abused by muslims, the ever increasing role of stupid political correctness plays into BNP hands too as does unchecked immigration and the current free for all, parties need to do research into what is driving people into the arms of the BNP and base their policies accordingly, just putting it on unemployment and jealousy is simplistic and putting a band aid on a burst artery

NO. they did not destroy the related anglo saxon culture, post invasion the normans were in the minority, the anglo saxon lands were handed over to their norman conquerers as overlords thus creating the class system that we still have today. the vast majority of castles were built post conquest because they knew their lives were in danger and they had to stamp their authority on the people of saxon/celtish ancestry. in fact for saying the norman conquest had profound effects upon the monarchy and ruling classes in britain, they have left hardly any cultural legacy, boundaries, roads, from small parishes to shires complete with their place names stayed in tact. and what happend after the conquest? a hundered years of civil unrest which culminated in the civil war between stephen and matilda... the conquest did us no favours at all..

Actually, the beauty of the Normans lay in their ability to recognise the use of continuity to their aims...they've left quite the legal legacy which would seem to hark back to the times of Edward the Confessor but Henry I only did so in a superficial manner...I would hardly say the 'unrest' that is prevalent culminated with the civil war between Stephen and Matilda. With William the Conqueror, fair dos that it came mainly as a result of the conquest itself, but William Rufus didn't face much in the way of unrest after the first few years of his reign (due to the effectiveness of his measures), and the unrest that Henry I faced came as a result of his conflicts with Robert Curthose and his ambitions to reclaim Normandy...the Conquest left a massive legal and financial legacy, although not superficially :P

Just putting the rise of the BNP down to sour grapes of unemployed is very simplistic, I know a few people who are middle class professionals including a millionaire IT tycoon who have said they can see where the BNP are coming from, I don't think it is just knuckle dragging skinheads and the unemployed it runs much deeper than that, 7/7 and 21/7 were the biggest recruiting sergeants the BNP has ever had and there is now deep suspicion of young muslims which plays into the hands of the BNP, I know someone who leaves a train or underground carriage if they see a young muslim in it as they fear they will be blown up, other things that play into the BNP hands are the Luton incident with the homecoming of the soldiers where they were abused by muslims, the ever increasing role of stupid political correctness plays into BNP hands too as does unchecked immigration and the current free for all, parties need to do research into what is driving people into the arms of the BNP and base their policies accordingly, just putting it on unemployment and jealousy is simplistic and putting a band aid on a burst artery

Then how do you explain support for the BNP remaining almost static between 2005 and 2008?

Just putting the rise of the BNP down to sour grapes of unemployed is very simplistic, I know a few people who are middle class professionals including a millionaire IT tycoon who have said they can see where the BNP are coming from, I don't think it is just knuckle dragging skinheads and the unemployed it runs much deeper than that, 7/7 and 21/7 were the biggest recruiting sergeants the BNP has ever had and there is now deep suspicion of young muslims which plays into the hands of the BNP, I know someone who leaves a train or underground carriage if they see a young muslim in it as they fear they will be blown up, other things that play into the BNP hands are the Luton incident with the homecoming of the soldiers where they were abused by muslims, the ever increasing role of stupid political correctness plays into BNP hands too as does unchecked immigration and the current free for all, parties need to do research into what is driving people into the arms of the BNP and base their policies accordingly, just putting it on unemployment and jealousy is simplistic and putting a band aid on a burst artery

 

Why the hell should the mainstream parties majorly adjust their policies in response to a party that's polling about 5% nationally? It just doesn't make sense. The BNP are never going to get more fertile conditions than this year (recession, outrage at establishment), and yet they've barely gained any ground. They're simply not a factor.

Then how do you explain support for the BNP remaining almost static between 2005 and 2008?

 

Less awareness of the BNP really and BNP fielding less candidates and frustration at Labour and Tories to address the immigration crisis, the BNP is a protest vote essentially

Why the hell should the mainstream parties majorly adjust their policies in response to a party that's polling about 5% nationally? It just doesn't make sense. The BNP are never going to get more fertile conditions than this year (recession, outrage at establishment), and yet they've barely gained any ground. They're simply not a factor.

 

Because in a couple of years time it will be 15% unless the issue of immigration is sorted out, it is the single most important issue facing this country

Because in a couple of years time it will be 15% unless the issue of immigration is sorted out, it is the single most important issue facing this country

It's the single most important issue in the eyes of the few racist idiots who are already voting for the BNP. Almost anyone would cite the recession as far more of an important issue.

 

Again, why would the BNP's support keep increasing? They're not going to get better conditions than this year, so it's illogical to suggest that their support is going to keep increasing as the recession ends and people get bored of the expenses scandal.

It's the single most important issue in the eyes of the few racist idiots who are already voting for the BNP. Almost anyone would cite the recession as far more of an important issue.

 

Again, why would the BNP's support keep increasing? They're not going to get better conditions than this year, so it's illogical to suggest that their support is going to keep increasing as the recession ends and people get bored of the expenses scandal.

 

There is no longer a stigma attached to voting for the BNP, a recent poll showed 22% would consider voting for the BNP and I would imagine that unemployment is running at about 7% of the country so how do you explain the other 15% ?

 

The reason why the BNP are getting so few actual votes is because they are fielding so few candidates, the more people join up the bigger their fighting fund and the more constituencies they will fight thus the bigger vote they will get, of course if they fight the current 20-30 constituencies they will poll small % nationally but turn up in EVERY constituency which could happen in 2014 and you will be shocked how many votes they get

 

 

a recent poll showed 22% would consider voting for the BNP

Source?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...voting-BNP.html

Just don't under estimate the BNP, their strongest showing was from uni students who on the whole are middle class with wealthy parents and are not an active part of the labour force so it is not just tattooed shaven headed skinheads in England football shirts voting for them it is well educated and intelligent people are being driven into the BNP by the tsunami of immigrants coming to this country, the French under estimated Le Pen and then the guy made the run off for the presidential election, within a decade the BNP will be challenging Lib Dems as the 3rd party in this country so politicians need to address the immigration issue and drive people away from the BNP before they create an out of control monster

Less awareness of the BNP really and BNP fielding less candidates and frustration at Labour and Tories to address the immigration crisis, the BNP is a protest vote essentially

Yes, hence why 7/7 and 21/7 WEREN'T their biggest draws - they tried to capitalise on it and there was media outrage that couldn't be avoided after they did that vile leaflet with the bus telling people to 'start listening'...

 

And they won't challenge the Lib Dems for third party any time soon. The BNP don't stand a chance in hell of getting a seat at the next election, whereas the Greens are guaranteed at least one, and might even end up with three...neither will catch up the Lib Dems at all. And you can bet that the second the BNP get a seat there will be major responses. When you've got front page news exposing the faults of the BNP day in day out support will inevitably drop...